Davide Mascarella1, Eleonora Matteo1, Valentina Favoni2, Sabina Cevoli3. 1. Department of Biomedical and NeuroMotor Sciences of Bologna, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 2. IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 3. IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Bologna, Italy. sabina.cevoli@unibo.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies have represented a real revolution in the field of headaches, being the result of an extraordinary process of translation of new pathophysiological discoveries into successful therapies. Nonetheless, clinical practice is far more complex than pivotal trials setting, and real-world studies are blooming to deepen knowledge of these revolutionary medications. OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated guide for evidence-based clinical practice. METHODS: Pivotal phase 3 randomised clinical trials for each anti-CGRP(-R) monoclonal antibody were considered. We evaluated prospective real-world studies and summarised evidence on anti-CGRP mAbs use beyond episodic and chronic migraine. RESULTS: All phase 3 RCTs showed an unprecedented profile of efficacy and safety in migraine prevention for the four anti-CGRP mAbs. However, plenty of questions remained open after the approval process. Real-world studies filled the gap and effectiveness results equalled or unexpectedly outperformed RCTs figures in most cases; safety results showed a lower incidence of adverse events, but a higher frequency of reported constipation compared to RCTs. Almost all studies displayed a rapid and progressive headache worsening following treatment suspension. Several positive response predictors were suggested, such as unilateral pain, allodynia in episodic migraineurs, response to triptans, and a lower number of failed prophylaxes. Comparable effectiveness was observed in resistant/refractory patients. In medication overuse headache patients, a clear clinical benefit was observed irrespective of any possible detoxification program. CONCLUSIONS: Our narrative review restates the remarkable efficacy, effectiveness, and safety profile in both RCTs and real-world settings and provides scientific evidence for clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies have represented a real revolution in the field of headaches, being the result of an extraordinary process of translation of new pathophysiological discoveries into successful therapies. Nonetheless, clinical practice is far more complex than pivotal trials setting, and real-world studies are blooming to deepen knowledge of these revolutionary medications. OBJECTIVE: To provide an updated guide for evidence-based clinical practice. METHODS: Pivotal phase 3 randomised clinical trials for each anti-CGRP(-R) monoclonal antibody were considered. We evaluated prospective real-world studies and summarised evidence on anti-CGRP mAbs use beyond episodic and chronic migraine. RESULTS: All phase 3 RCTs showed an unprecedented profile of efficacy and safety in migraine prevention for the four anti-CGRP mAbs. However, plenty of questions remained open after the approval process. Real-world studies filled the gap and effectiveness results equalled or unexpectedly outperformed RCTs figures in most cases; safety results showed a lower incidence of adverse events, but a higher frequency of reported constipation compared to RCTs. Almost all studies displayed a rapid and progressive headache worsening following treatment suspension. Several positive response predictors were suggested, such as unilateral pain, allodynia in episodic migraineurs, response to triptans, and a lower number of failed prophylaxes. Comparable effectiveness was observed in resistant/refractory patients. In medication overuse headache patients, a clear clinical benefit was observed irrespective of any possible detoxification program. CONCLUSIONS: Our narrative review restates the remarkable efficacy, effectiveness, and safety profile in both RCTs and real-world settings and provides scientific evidence for clinical practice.
Authors: Virginia L Stauffer; David W Dodick; Qi Zhang; Jeffrey N Carter; Jessica Ailani; Robert R Conley Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Stewart Tepper; Messoud Ashina; Uwe Reuter; Jan L Brandes; David Doležil; Stephen Silberstein; Paul Winner; Dean Leonardi; Daniel Mikol; Robert Lenz Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: David W Dodick; Messoud Ashina; Jan Lewis Brandes; David Kudrow; Michel Lanteri-Minet; Vera Osipova; Kerry Palmer; Hernan Picard; Daniel D Mikol; Robert A Lenz Journal: Cephalalgia Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 6.292
Authors: Peter J Goadsby; Uwe Reuter; Yngve Hallström; Gregor Broessner; Jo H Bonner; Feng Zhang; Ian K Wright; Denise E Chou; Jan Klatt; Hernan Picard; Robert A Lenz; Daniel D Mikol Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 9.910